The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the cashier’s checks on the victim’s wall in the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact), L used two copies of the cashier’s checks on the victim’s wall, and L stated that two cashier’s checks were received from the Defendant in telephone conversations with investigators.

In full view of these points and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant stolen the victim's wall.

2. The Defendant, from around September 13, 2010 to around 24:300 of the same day, committed a theft of the victim’s reflective check number of KRW 1 million in front of the Defendant, two copies of the check number of KRW 1 million in front of himself/herself (F-G number: F-G number), two copies of the check number of KRW 100,000 won in front of himself/herself (H-I number: H-G number), five copies of the check number of the new bank account book (number: J-K), one million won in cash, and one hundred thousand won in front of the issuance of the new bank account number of KRW 100,000,000 in front of the victim’s shoulder owned by the victim E, who was playing in D’s house, was located in inside and outside the bank.

3. Determination

A. Since the Defendant consistently denies the facts charged in this case from the authority of the lower court to the court of the lower court, the Defendant’s conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value that leads to a judge to have a conviction that is sufficient to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, there is no doubt of guilt against the Defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to determine the defendant's interest as the investigation report (L, A's materials investigation, etc.) stating the contents of L's telephone statement, etc. has consented to the defendant, and thus, the L's statement cannot be used as evidence because L has not testified in the court of original instance. The remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case and there is no other evidence to

Therefore, the facts charged of this case are as follows.